Suppose the universe from our big bang is surrounded by many distant blackholes with each a mass of sextillions of suns. Could it explain dark energy?

Question

Could dark energy "simply" be from multiple distant universe-scale mass black holes, that are there "all-around" the big bang? Scattered apparently randomly, throughout infinity (or a very big distance)

If not black holes, some other kind of concentrated mass, but in the order of magnitude of the mass of the big bang's "universe". So sextillions of solar mass (M☉).

These black holes, let's call them Big Bang Massive Black Holes (BBMBH), because "supermassive" and "ultramassive" is taken.

Visual representation

Here's a visual representation of the black holes and gravity effects:

Shell theorem

I got some comments about the shell theorem, so let me explain why I don't think it applies here:

There's the big bang in the "center", and there's multiple objects around it, randomly distributed. If there was just one layer around the center, then yes it would probably apply, like this:

But if you look at the visual representation above, it doesn't apply because the gravity is not symmetrical (or spherical).

It would only apply if the black holes would be evenly distributed:

Context / Assumptions

Firstly, this doesn't change anything that we currently agree on: the Big Bang and its age, the effects of dark energy, etc.

Here are some assumptions that make the idea (possibly) work:

• The full universe is infinite, or much bigger than the known and observable universe
• The big bang is not the whole universe. It's just a small part of it: there's more mass around it.
• The big bang is not the start of the whole universe.

Dark Energy

The infinite collection of BBMBHs described above would explain the dark energy, being gravity on BBMBH scales.

Some maths

The universe is currently around 28.5 gigaparsecs (Gpc).

Let's say that the average distance between all BBMBHs is around 700 Gpc. That would mean there's a bunch of BBMBHs pulling everything from "our big bang" towards them.

At first, even a black hole of 10 sextillions of M☉ wouldn't have much pull from 700 Gpc. Also considering that there are BBMBHs all-around, so they're pretty much all negating each other (as they were all in equilibrium before the big bang).

From the current observations humanity made, it looks like at around 8-10 billions years old, the big bang's size expansion started accelerating. From around 3 Gpc.

At 697 Gpc, BBMBHs could start to gradually have a non-negligible pull, accelerating with time. Also, the pull from the other BBMBHs on the other side would now be from 703 Gpc, not 700, so that's an additive effect towards the expansion of the Big Bang, adding to the fact that the peripheral galaxies would be less pulled from the big bang's mass, the further away from its inception it would be.

1D Estimation

I made a quick 1D estimation to see if it would make sense, and even though it's a gross over-simplification, it seems like it could be possible.

Here's 2 graphs (one for the first 4 billion years and another for the rest), followed by more details:

Using 2 BBMBHs at 1400 Gpc from each other, with a big bang starting between them, with a peripheral galaxy moving at 1c after 370000 years (using current estimates), then slowing down due to the mass of the other matter from the Big Bang, and then accelerated by the closest BBMBH located at 700 Gpc at first, I get:

• 0.56 Gpc at 8 billion years old
• 1.64 Gpc at 10 billion years old, and
• 14.15 Gpc at 13.78 billion years old,

which is close to the agreed upon sizes of around

• 1.5 Gpc between 8 and 10 billion years, and
• 14.13 Gpc now (~13.78 billions years)

More context that might be irrelevant / out of scope

If the big bang isn't the beginning of the universe, what is it?

What I'm suggesting is that "the big bang" might be a BBMBH that exploded (similar to big stars going supernova)

So the idea is that our big bang is actually not "the big bang", but "a big bang".

The big picture

In the grand scheme of things, there would be an infinite (or very large) collection of BBMBHs.

Then the occasional "big bang" of one of the BBMBH, resulting in a blip of chaos, absorbed by all other BBMBHs eventually, or forming another one, in an unimaginable time scale.

Conclusion

I feel like it's possible? I don't know if it's probable, so that's why I'm asking. Any insights?

P.S. Sorry for my English, my native language is French, but I thought I would have more chances of finding answers in English, and also I mostly learned astrophysics from English sources.

Edit: Removed a bunch of information and restructured the question and details Edit 2: Adding the shell theorem

Answer 1

Dark Energy is an unfortunate name, as it goads ppl into finding missing energy. We already have that problem with Dark Matter.

The EFE can be written:

$$ G_{\mu\nu} = kT_{\mu\nu} - \Lambda g_{\mu\nu} $$

So for $\Lambda=0$, we have the usual matter ($T_{\mu\nu}$) tells spacetime how to curve ($G_{\mu\nu}$).

With a non-zero cosmological constant, there is a "correction" to the stress energy tensor that is proportional to the metric.

If you consider a lone mass at rest, the contribution to curvature from matter is $T_{00} \propto m$...which looks like Newtonian gravity.

Meanwhile, even in fast spacetime, the cosmological constant contributes $-\eta_{\mu\nu}=-{\rm drag}(1, -1,-1,-1)$, which is completely different from stress-energy.

Answer 2

A spherically symmetric shell of matter exerts precisely zero gravitational force on anything inside the shell. This is Newton's shell theorem.

So no, this idea doesn't work for at least one important reason.